2y ago

Texas defendant challenging federal gun law at the Supreme Court says he doesn’t want firearms anymore

www.cnn.com

Texas defendant challenging federal gun law at the Supreme Court says he doesn’t want firearms anymore | CNN Politics

Zackey Rahimi, the Texas criminal defendant challenging a federal gun law before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, said this summer that he no longer wanted to own firearms and expressed remorse for his actions that got him in trouble with the law.

“I will make sure for sure this time that when I finish my time being incarcerated to stay the faithful, righteous person I am this day, to stay away from all drugs at all times, do probation & parole rightfully, to go to school & have a great career, have a great manufacturing engineering job, to never break any law again, to stay away from the wrong circle, to stay away from all firearms & weapons, & to never be away from my family again,” Rahimi, who is being held at a Fort Worth jail, said in a handwritten letter dated July 25.

He continued: “I had firearms for the right reason in our place to be able to protect my family at all times especially for what we’ve went through in the past but I’ll make sure to do whatever it takes to be able to do everything the right pathway & to be able to come home fast as I can to take care of my family at all times.”

140 comments

It doesn't matter. If the SC upholds the law (which is unlikely) the gun lobby will simply find someone more acceptable, and under slightly different circumstances, and bring up another challenge. They'll keep going after gun laws the way the anti-choice side relentlessly attacked Roe.
- I mean, this particular gun law violates the 14A, so it's good for all of us if 2A supporters go after it.
  
  How is putting guns in the hands of known abusers a good thing to do? Why is that person's right to a gun more important to the lives of those around him?
- Because the 2nd Amendment is clear and any gun law is an infringement of the right.
  
  Even gun loving conservative scholars agree that the 2nd amendment is a barely coherent grammatically tenuous mess. It’s notoriously unclear.
  But for my part, I don’t see how any sane person reads “A well regulated Militia” and concludes that all regulation is prohibited.
  
  The second amendment is not clear and has been given the broadest possible interpretation. Are you a member of a well-regulated militia?
  
  for the purposes of a well regulated militia
  Yeah we don't have those anymore chief. We have this thing called a military instead and I already saw your "everyone is a part of the militia" opinion, that's some straight up bullshit.
  I never agreed to be in one so I'm definitely not.
  how the fuck can you possibly well regulate a militia with ~10 million people?
  
  any gun law is an infringement of the right.
  Ok, boomer
  
  No one who has actually read the 2A has ever thought it was "clear".
  
  You know that half the states had restrictions (no open carry, concealed carry, registration, etc) when the 2nd Amendment was passed and continued to have those restrictions after, right? For something being so clear, a good portion of the states sure misunderstood it...or maybe it's you that does.
Of course he will say all that while incarcerated and trying to get out on good behavior.
- Gonna be real hard to accomplish all that with a federal felony firearms conviction on your record. Not to mention being involved in five separate shootings in a three-month period.
And he is NOT dropping the suit for what, "exactly"?
- Whoever paid for his lawyers won't let him.
The Constitution is definitely clear. Due Process of Law is required to deprive a citizen of their Constitutional rights.
Do Civil proceedings pass the bar of "Due Process"? This is what the SCOTUS must decide.
Personally I don't think they are sufficient enough Due Process alone. I do however suspect that if criminal charges are filed and one is convicted of violence, a Civil court judge may still be within their rights to suspend the rights of the accused to own a firearm temporarily to protect someone.
Rahimi was issued a restraining order in 2020 after a violent altercation with his girlfriend in Arlington, Texas. A court found that he had “committed family violence” and that it was likely to occur again.
So this man was already convicted of gun violence once by a criminal court.
When the police ultimately obtained a search warrant for his home, they found a rifle and a pistol, and Rahimi admitted that he was subject to the protective order that had been entered in the civil proceeding.
The evidence shows he's been sanctioned by a protective order.
A federal grand jury indicted him, and Rahimi moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the law was unconstitutional. He lost his court effort, but then the Supreme Court issued the landmark Second Amendment decision.
He's been indicted on criminal charges. Yep. I think this guy in particular probably did not have his Constitutional rights to own a gun intact.
Rahimi, who is challenging his conviction under a federal law that bars individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing a firearm, is being held at the jail under separate charges stemming from a series of gun-related incidents.
Ah yeah. This. He definitely should not be allowed to own a gun if convicted under these separate charges.
Relatedly, I also see there's a federal law on the books. Hmm. This sounds like the people already believe this civil proceeding is Due Process!

140 comments